A man's appeal from a jury verdict that declared he was not insane when he allegedly stabbed his wife to death in a hospital bed, was dismissed for the second time.

Jurors had ruled that Anthony Schembri, 61, of Sliema, had not been insane when he allegedly stabbed his wife Doris on September 29, 2005 at St Luke's Hospital.

However, that trial had been declared null by the Criminal Court of Appeal because of an irregularity and a retrial had been ordered.

The second trial by jury confirmed that verdict with seven votes to two on September 17, 2008.

However, Mr Schembri filed an appeal on grounds that the jurors could not have reached the conclusion they did, based on the evidence produced and that the presiding judge, Mr Justice Joseph Galea Debono, mislead jurors in his address to them.

Mr Schembri had pleaded insanity during the compilation of evidence in the Magistrates' Court and a mental health assessment drawn up by three court-appointed psychiatrists concluded he was not in the right state of mind when he committed the crime.

Testifying in the trial, Police Inspector Chris Pullicino had said that Mr Schembri had told him that his wife used to make constant fun of him because he became impotent as a direct result of drugs he used to take to fight his mental illness.

Psychiatrists David Cassar, Anton Grech and Ethel Felice said Mr Schembri experienced illusions and paranoia, which was a result of schizophrenia.

They said that, having been sexually abused as a child, this had a very negative effect on him, adding to the sexual problems he was having and taking the powerful medication furthered the problem.

Mr Schembri appealed on a point of law, claiming that the judge who presided over the trial led the jury astray when he said, in his closing address, that the psychiatrists report was not correct.

Mr Schembri said such comments had completely misguided the jurors.

But Mr Justice David Scicluna, Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri and Mr Justice Joseph Micallef said that, after reviewing the address, which they had to listen to because it was not transcribed, they could conclude that the judge did not in any way say that the report was incorrect.

As regards the evidence produced before the jurors, the judges said they were in the best possible position to appreciate the evidence, as correctly guided by the presiding judge and after reviewing all the evidence they chose to ignore the psychiatrists' opinion.

On this basis, the three judges dismissed the appeal.